RV-12 and actual IFR......

[RFSchaller]

Rob,

I’m not sure I follow the regulatory trail to the ASTM. The Operating Limits for my ELSA allow night and IFR operations if properly equipped. Are you referring to SLSA RV-12s?

Rich

[randylervold]

I have read this thread with great interest as I am seriously considering an RV-12iS project that I specifically want to be IFR capable/legal. My intended use will be light VFR capability/use and that has been well articulated by several posters above.

Thanks to Scott M., the OP on this thread, for getting the issues on the table and attempting to get the legalities clarified. I would surmise from all the info above that an ELSA, when properly equipped as defined in 91.205, would indeed be IFR legal, and that the two main changes from the ELSA configuration would be the 91.205-required heated pitot and approved IFR navigator source, and I'm considering what I think is a fairly creative Dynon/Avidyne solution for that. Anything other than that and any disagreement with that?

I am fully aware that I could build it as an E-LSA and then change the panel and certain other items the day I get the COA so as to comply with 91.205, but I have no problem building it as an E-AB. I'm not sure why some other posters seem averse to that.

Once I start the build I'll get back into the pitot issue and the fact that a wing mounted heated pitot would technically require an entire flight test series to determine accuracy, a topic for another thread. I'm told that the Rotax 912iS has a higher output alternator which will hopefully handle the additional electrical load needed, I'll research that here shortly.

So, for the archives, do we have clarity on this now?

[Mel]

Originally Posted by randylervold

91.205-required heated pitot and approved IFR navigator source,

Where in 91.205 do you find a "required heated pitot"?

[randylervold]

Originally Posted by Mel

Where in 91.205 do you find a "required heated pitot"?

That's what I get for trusting what others have indicated -- I haven't specifically found it, my apologies. Let's clarify, is it required for IFR operations or just a good idea?

[Mel]

Originally Posted by randylervold

That's what I get for trusting what others have indicated -- I haven't specifically found it, my apologies. Let's clarify, is it required for IFR operations or just a good idea?

Not required.

[BobTurner]

The “approved ifr navigator” could be as simple as a VOR, depending on where you’re going. As to the heated pitot, as Gil said, not legally required. You might ask yourself, “Will I absolutely never enter the clouds when it’s below freezing?” You might also ask yourself if your EFIS attitude display requires airspeed data, airspeed or gps, or neither, and how that factors into your risk tolerance.

[randylervold]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

You might also ask yourself if your EFIS attitude display requires airspeed data, airspeed or gps, or neither, and how that factors into your risk tolerance.

Good point, virtually all EFIS systems use either GPS or pitot/static "aiding", most use both to some degree.

[moosepileit]

Stein sells an easy to install alternate static air source switch valve. Cabin alternate air selection with autopilot on will move the plane 60 feet vertically at cruise.

As important as Pitot heat, potentially.

I did get a static block once after a level 5 storm drenched plane from every direction.

Have not tried to find icing.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by randylervold

Good point, virtually all EFIS systems use either GPS or pitot/static "aiding", most use both to some degree.

Some use “aiding” (fine tuning); some will show a just plain wrong attitude without either pitot or gps data.

[RFSchaller]

I have heard that the ELSA operating limits now preclude IFR operation by incorporating the POH into the OL. Mel, is that true? Mine issued in 2012 allow IFR if so equipped.

The way around the IFR issue on ELSA seems to be build EAB and equip for IFR.

Personally I think the RV-12 would not be a good IFR platform without an autopilot, but I’m sure some would disagree. My Cherokee allows some division of attention when hand flying and sorting out ATC reroutes without looking up from the chart and finding an unusual attitude or new heading. I don’t think the 12 would be as forgiving of momentary inattention.